>,* -r- FRP TECHNICAL PAMPHLET NO. 21 >: V.

A STUDY OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES: THE CASE OF CROP PRODUCTION AMONG THE DA W RO OF SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA

BY DATA DEA ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY

FARMERS’ RESEARCH PROJECT (FRP) FARM AFRICA P.O.BOX 495 AWASSA ETHIOPIA

JULY 1997 r i

FRP TECHNICAL PAMPHLET NO. 21

A STUDY OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES: THE CASE OF CROP PRODUCTION AMONG THE DA WRO OF SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA I I!

BY DATA DEA ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY

FARMERS’ RESEARCH PROJECT (FRP) FARM AFRICA P.O.BOX 495 AWASSA ETHIOPIA

JULY 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNWLED GENENT (ii) GLOSARY OF LOCAL TERMS (iii) ACRONYMS (iv) PREFACE (v)

1. INRODUCTION i l 1.1 Objective ! 1 1.2 Methodology I 1 1.2.1 Site Selection !1 1.3 Contextual Definition of Knowledge ; 2

2. THE DAWRO PEOPLE: A BRIEF ACCOUNT • 5 2.1 General 5 2.2 Koysh PA: The Specific Study Site 6 2.3 The Social System 6 2.4 Overview of Economic Activities 8

3. INDEGINIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF CROP PRODUCTION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 10 3.1 Introduction 10 3.2 Case Studies of Production Practices of Major Crops 11 3.2.1 The Case of Maize Production 11 3.2.2 The Case of Sorghum Producton 18 3.2.3 The Case of Teff Production 21 3.2.4 The Case of Ensete Production 22 3.3 Compartive Analysis of Agricultural knowledge and Farming Practices Accross Social Groups 25 3.4 Some Processes in the generation and Transmission of Local Knowledge 27

4. CONCLUSION 29

REFERENES 32

APPENDICES 34

i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special gratitude to my advisor Dr. Alula Pankhurst whose contributions were essential for the success of this work. I am also grateful to Dr. Ian Scoones, of the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex (U.K) whose rich experience highly enriched my understanding of local/indigenous knowledge.

I am very grateful to the Farmers’ Research Project of FARM Africa for its financial support for undertaking the fieldwork for this study particularly during the first two phases of fieldwork. My special thanks are, thus, due to all the FRP staff, for their unreserved support for the success of my work. I would also like to extend my thanks to all the staff of Action Aid Ethiopia, Koysha Rural Development Area, who offered me sincere cooperation during my fieldwork.

I am also indebted to the people of Dawro in general whose friendliness and hospitality made me feel at home during my fieldwork; and to my informants in particular who let me leam about their lives. I would also like to thank my assistants Ato Wondimu Lemma and Ato Bekele Bakalo, who exploited their rich knowledge of the Dawro culture to assist me during my fieldwork, j i

Data Dea j July 1997 j GLOSSARY OF LOCAL TERMS

Aylia hoe Babaka practice of weeding by oxen plough Dadda backyard, garden area that is organically fertilised Dago large work party called for large-scale agricultural operation Dashua midland or mid altitude Dawrotsua the Dawro dialect of Omotic language Degella tanner Derg military government that ruled Ethiopia from 1974-1991 Diyiaa granary made from bamboo trees Doria indigenous granary where a storage bed is constructed on a living tree Enjera Ethiopian traditional bread made from teff flour Ensete root crop widely grown in southwestern Ethiopia GadJia lowland Gatua teaming up oxen to make a pair for plough Gezia highland Ginda plough Idirea voluntary burial and housing association Jalla bond relationship through circumcision rites (eye-parent or children are referred as Jalla) Kati Dawro king Komua clan Kotsa share-production partnership Mana potter Neftegna man with a gun; in southern Ethiopia, a common name for the descendants of people who went to Dawro as participants of the “Ethiopian feudal system” Otsa uncultivated area Shoika out field Teff small seeded grain, endemic to Ethiopia from which injera is made • Ulia a method of storage whereby a harvested crop is piled on the ground and covered by grass or ensete leaves Wogache smith Woreda a formal administrative unit hierarchically above the Peasant Association Zewe a reciprocal work group composed of 3-10 persons ACRONYMS

AAE Action Aid Ethiopia

CSO Central Statistics Office

EPRDF Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front l HH Household 1i MOA Ministry of Agriculture 1I PA Peasants’ Association

SNNPR Southern Nations’ Nationalities and Peoples Region Preface I FARM Africa is a registered charity in the United Kingdom and working in various projects in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and the Republic of South Africa. One of the major projects FARM undertakes in Ethiopia is the Farmer's Research Project (FRP) which is carried out in the North Omo Zone, Konso, and Derashe, Special Woredas of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People's Region. So far the project has completed its two phases and has started its phase three program. Phase one of the project covered the three years between 1991 and 1993 while phase two covered the second three years of 1993 to 1995.

FRP has as its main objective, alleviating the agricultural problems of resource-poor farmers whose livelihoods and farming systems are characterized by relative complexity, diversity and risk-proneness. By involving them directly in all stages of agricultural research processes, FRP seeks to harness the huge potential of traditional; knowledge farmers have accumulated in their centuries long struggle to obtain their livelihoods. Emphasis is thus given by FPR to the indigenous knowledge of resource-pOor farmers based on the fact that their proven survival capacity contains many lessons that scientists can learn from rather than the other way round.

"Study" is one major component in the project and a series of studies, namely, diagnostic, topical and special studies, are conducted by FRP to achieve its objectives. Published as Technical Pamphlets (TP), studies are important sources of basic information on the agricultural practices, social , as well as economic aspects of various groups of people and their environment. This technical pamphlet, which is the 21st in the series of TPs produced for FRP, is also prepared with a view to assisting in the above endeavor. It is concerned with examining the relationship between the local agriculturalj (technical) knowledge and the social system among the Dawro of Southwestern Ethiopia, j i The study begins by presenting a detailed account of the topographic, socioeconomic as well as environmental conditions of the Dawro people. It then dwells upon a comparative analysis of the agricultural knowledge, skills and farming practices of two farming groups in Dawro, the Malla and the Manja. The resulting revelation is a striking account of differences in agricultural practices and knowledge between these two groups who share similar environment.

As well as providing technical guidelines on the objectives and methodology used in conducting the study, the author provides a brief contextual definition of local knowledge. It also considers the socioeconomic systems and overview of economic activities of the Dawro people. It later goes on to explore the indigenous technical knowledge of the two farming groups by taking in to account the case of maize, sorghum teff and ensete production as practiced by the two groups. The justification for this is that these crops are relatively more important to the two groups of people in terms of use for food, cash value, and area of land they require for cultivation.

The main fieldwork for this study took place in 1997 when the author, Ato Data Dea spent time researching material for his M.A. thesis. However, the author, after finishing his M.A was involved in other activities followed by a Ph.D study and the document was thus not finalized. It took longer time than expected to complete it and some of the comments forwarded by other persons ( which need the attention of the author) have not also been incorporated. We are obliged to publish this document with the feeling that the findings are valuable even without incorporating the comments. We would also like to apologize for the relative delay in the publication of this study due to the problems indicated above.

The significance of this study to FRP cannot be exaggerated and FARM hopes to translate its contents to productive purposes. Other interested parties and professionals wishing to engage in studies of this type are highly encouraged and FRP promises its fullest cooperation should they need it.

Ejigu Jonfa

Coordinator, FRP 1. INTRODUCTION This report examines the relationship between local agricultural (technical) knowledge and the social system among the Dawro of South-western Ethiopia. It was part of a bigger research project undertaken for an MA thesis in Social Anthropology that looked at social stratification and rural livelihoods in Dawro. The report has four parts. The introductory section presents the research objectives, methodology and conceptual framework. Chapter two briefly describes the Dawro people, the area and Koysha PA - the specific study site. Chapter three describes local knowledge and practices of crop production in Dawro. The last chapter summarizes findings of the study.

1.1 Objective The main objective of this study is to record and comparatively analyze components of local (indigenous) agricultural knowledge, skills, and farming practices of two farming groups in Dawro. This study is part of a bigger study in Dawro comparing the livelihood strategies of two farmer groups, the Malla and the Manja, who share more or less similar natural environment, but differ in their structural position. Assuming that local knowledge and practices are an important asset for the success of rural livelihoods, this study looks at the extent to which the social background of farming groups influence and is influenced by local knowledge of agriculture. Furthermore, by outlining a comprehensive account of the local knowledge and practices as well as diverse socioeconomic realities of the Dawro people and their environment, this study attempts to provide material that could be used in designing appropriate FPR intervention schemes and or other development endeavors.

1.2 Methodology 1.2.1 Site Selection To select a specific study site representative of the Dawro society, and relevant for the theme of the study, pre-site selection activities were undertaken. These activities included: review of secondary data, interviews and discussion with some 'key informants' selected from different parts of Dawro, and visiting suggested potential villages. Out of the five woredas of Dawro, Mareka Gena was selected mainly because it is the historical and symbolic center of Dawro, people from all social groups (strata) live together here, and it is relatively more accessible. The next issue was how to select a specific Peasant Association (PA) which is not too far from Waka town and to observe the interaction between different social groups; and a PA where both Malla and Manja are represented. Based on these criteria, Koysha PA, which is, located about 5 kms from Waka town was selected for intensive study. Another advantage of Koysha PA is that it comprises different agro-climatic zones (See chapter two for

l description of Koysha). In addition to this specific study site, intermittent visits were made to other places to obtain a comprehensive picture of the socio-cultural scene in Dawro.

1.2.2 Data Collection The findings presented are based on data collected during four and a half months of fieldwork in Dawro, between January 1996 and March 1997. The fieldwork was divided into three unequal phases. The first one was from January to mid February 1996, the second was in May 1996 and the third was in February and March 1997. The timing was important to observe the situation in different seasons. To obtain tlie necessary data, a combination of the following methods were employed: - i) Interviews: semi-structured interviews were conducted to ensure optimum coverage of different issues and to initiate conversations. The interviews, which cover a wide range of issues, were tape-recorded and later transcribed. Unstructured interviews were also used to identify key informants and focus groups that served as "spokespersons". Interviews were usually conducted at the homes of the informants. Intend ^wees were selected from all social groups in line with the main concerns of the study. ii) Case Studies: Involved collection of detailed qualitative data on the practices of key informants, their actions and networks through close acquaintance over several months, Extracts from these case studies are used in this report. iii) Participant Observation: was the principal method of data collection, whereby the researcher resided in different villages of Koysha PA with special emphasis to Wololi village and took part in the daily life of the people observing and recording actual farm management activities and decisions. This helped obtain information on the farmers' insights, thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and practices concerning many aspects of rural livelihoods among the Dawro and interacti on between people of different social backgrounds. iv) Household Survey: A focused questionnaire survey of households composed of 64 items (both open ;md close ended questions) was administered during the second round of field work to obtain seme base line quantitative data on households' access to and ownership of major assets particularly on factors of production (land, labour, livestock and cash income), crop preference, ;ind so on. From the total of 311 households of the Koysha PA 150 households (nearly 50 percent) were selected by stratified random sampling from each social group. Accordingly, the households selected for questionnaire survey were composed of 92 Malla, 43 Manja , 5 smiths, 4 tanners, 4 potters and 2 Naftegna. (See chapter three for their proportion in the total Dawro population). v)_Secondary Data Review: I also reviewed documents compiled by the Dawro administrative council, the Woreda office of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and the Action-Aid Ethiopia Koysha Program which provided some data on the history, language, culture and agricultural practices of the Dawro.

2 1.3 Contextual Definition of Local Knowledge In the literature the idea of local knowledge is addressed in various ways with varying terms such as rural people's knowledge, traditional knowledge, indigenous (technical) knowledge, local knowledge etc. (Desalegn, 1988; Hailu, 1995; Fairhead, 1992, Scoones, 1994). It has been defined differently by different scholars. To mention a few: Over centuries, indigenous people have developed their own region specific knowledge and practices of agriculture, nature [sic] resource management, human and animal health, education and many other subjects. This complex knowledge, beliefs and practices are generally known as indigenous knowledge or traditional knowledge. (Hailu, 1995:2). And Dessalegn (1988) states: Indigenous or traditional peasant knowledge is defined as the acc- I umulated experience of rural communities that guide their thought, action and decisions. This knowledge is often practical and utilitar- i ian, but it may also include aesthetic, myth, musical, religious, and literary expressions used to understand and explain natural pheno­ mena. (p.l). \ Olayan (1982), on his part, conceptualized traditional knowledge as the ability to survive in harmony with the environment and to cope with traditional occupations. (Quoted in Nigussie, 1988:11) Although all the definitions quoted are too general to serve any specific purpose, they raised some important issues for any discussion on indigenous knowledge. Particularly relevant ones for this study are that indigenous knowledge i) is not only knowledge but also practices ii) it guides peoples' action and decisions iii) it is region specific (local) and iv) it is also a 'survival knowledge' of the environment. j However, Fairhead (1992) senses some problems with researchers who tend! to consider indigenous knowledge in terms of systems or techniques that are adapted ecologically and socio­ economically. He argues that this raises the question of whether or not the farmers develop and adapt their practices knowingly or unwittingly. More importantly, it prevents us from grasping how farmers flexibly alter their practices to suit their diverse social and ecological circumstances. One more important conception of indigenous knowledge is that of Reijntjes et.al. (1992:213) which views it as "knowledge of the people living in a certain area, generated by their own and their ancestors' experience and including knowledge originating from else where which has been internalized by the local people". This is important because at times it is difficult to know where, when, and by whom the current knowledge and practice of a certain group of rural people is

3 ] originated particularly where there are no written sources. In fact, this is the main reason why I prefer the term local knowledge. I use the term interchangeably with indigenous knowledge since the term has gained wider currency so far. The term local knowledge does not necessarily imply the origin of a certain practice or knowledge. Rather it refers to the knowledge and practices of the people that are internalized and currently in use in the locality of this study. Having said this it may be useful to consider the ideas of Scoones and Thompson (1994:18) who suggest that indigenous knowledge should be considered as “cultural knowledge” where local technical knowledge, skills and capacities are inextricably linked to non-technical ones (i.e. cultural, ecological, and sociological factors). In this way indigenous technical knowledge becomes rural people’s knowledge. This is important for this study because I suppose that technical knowledge and practices may be accompanied by rituals and carry important symbols and recalled and transmitted through ceremonies and rituals. This implies that an attempt to study indigenous knowledge on crop production must be cognizant of rituals and symbols therein. Brusius et al. (1986) divide indigenous knowledge into two components: those that are inherited from generation to generation (widely shared) and those that are gained through individual experience (This conceptualization is in some respects similar to what Hallpike (1986) calls convergent and divergent thinking). The two are not mutually exclusive, i.e. while a larger pattern of shared social knowledge provides a contextual framework for the individual to translate and interpret empirical observation, the individual observation may become shared by the members of the society. However, the authors do not discuss how or when the individual observations are incorporated in the shared knowledge. They assert that the individuals ultimately create new knowledge. Though this is appealing, they do not discuss how this happens. This provokes questions such as: When do people generate new knowledge? Who are those individuals who create new knowledge? We can proceed by hypothesizing that new knowledge innovated by individuals are disseminated and transmitted to the community through social organization, rituals, ceremonies and other social instruments under certain conditions. The potential variations in indigenous knowledge where the individual is viewed as innovator of new knowledge still raises further issues such as: When is the new knowledge accepted or rejected? To what extent is indigenous knowledge shared? How is social knowledge created, acquired, transmitted? etc. Moreover, the uneven distribution of knowledge among members of any society (both at the level of the individual as well as subgroups like sex, age, class, occupation, economic conditions etc) leads to consideration of knowledge at different levels and categories of people, rather than just knowledge of people. Some of these issues will be attempted in this study. i ! 1 a i I! I

4

i 2.THE DAWRO PEOPLE AND THEIR AREA: A BRIEF ACCOUNT 2.1 General The Dawro (formerly called the Kullo) belong to the Omotic people of southwestern Ethiopia (Bender, 1974) located to the west of the Omo River valley. Their language, which is locally called Dawrotsua or Dawro Qala is classified as a dialect of the central Omotic languages, along with Gofa, Gamo, Wolaita, Kota, and others (Fleming, 1976). Terefe et.al. (1995) wrote, "Dawro malet yemaydeffer birtuna jegina hizb malet new" {Dawro means an ^impregnable, powerful and heroic people). Omatia is another term by which the Dawro are locally blown.

Dawro is located between latitudes of 6° 52'N to 7° 13 'N and longitudes of 37° 7 'E to 37° 26 'E ( Gizachew, 1992). The Dawro are bordered by the Konta in the west, Kambata in the northeast, Wolaita in the east, Malo in the south, and Oromo in the north (See map 1 in Appendix A). Gojeb and Omo rivers demarcate most of the territory in the north and east respectively. According to the present administrative structure of Ethiopia, Dawro is part of the North Omo Zone of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples' Region (see map 1 in Appendix A). Before the administrative restructuring of 1989, Dawro belonged to the then Kulo-Konta1 Awraja, under Kafa administrative region. At that time the administrative capital was Waka, which is located about 510 kms south west of Addis Ababa. Waka town, which has also been a symbolic center, has experienced a shift of power concentration i.e. it was Awraja center until 1988, it then became the center of Mareka-Gena Woreda from 1989-95, and as of April 1996 it has regained its status as the pan-Dawro center and houses the newly opened mastebaberia or coordination office and coordinates and administers “development activities” in all the Dawro territory. According to the 1984 population census the Dawro (Domate) numbered 275,552, constituting 0.65% of the national population (CSO, 1991). According to the 1994 population census, the Dawro (which appeared as Kullo), were reported to be 273, 089 (CSA, 1996). This includes only those living in various parts of the Southern Nations', Nationalities, and Peoples' Region. Although child mortality seems to be high in Dawro due to poor medical condition which may partly explain population decline in the 10 years, it is debatable whether there has been actual population decline in 10 years or the 1994 population census should have under-reported the size of the Dawro population. The total area of Dawro territory is 417,197 ha. and is composed predominantly of mountainous terrain. Population density was 106/km2 in 1993 (AAE, 1993a). This is about three times higher than the national average i.e 34 persons per km2 (CSA, 1990). The altitude of Dawro land ranges from 800 meters above sea level (masl) at the Omo river valley to over 2,900 masl at Tocha mountains; and 2,500 masl at Waka town. Agro-ecologically Dawro land is composed of

This pairing has now been changed to Dawro-Konta. This is perhaps because the Dawro and the Konta are the closest to each other among the central Omotic speaking peoples.

5 gezia (high land), Dashua (mid altitude) and gadha (low land). According to the geographical classification of Ethiopia, what the Dawro call gezia (dega in Amharic) is the area over 2,400 masl, bargua (Amharic Woina dega) is the area between 1,500 and 2,400 masl and gadha (Amharic kolla) is the area below 1,500 masl. (For details see Mesfin, 1991.) According to the Dawro local classification, there are four seasons. These are: Ad ilia (September - November), Bonia (December - February), Asura (March - May), and Balgita (June - August). The dry season is from October to January. The area recieves rains throughout the rest of the year. Heavy rains come between June and September. Annual rainfall was recorded to be 1,945 mm in a station iear Waka town in 1993 (AAE 1993a). I 4 The Dawro share a cultural identity of what is referred to in Ethiopia as 'the ensete [ensete ventricosuhi\ culture complex* which is commonly characterized by higher population density sustained by the ensete plant which gives high yields from small plots of land. Along with ensete culture the Dawro also share other features of southwestern Ethiopia on matters of social stratification, food taboos and conception of purity and pollution (See below).

2.2 Koyhsa PA: The Specific Study Site Koysha PA is one of the 37 PAs in Mareka Woreda, and is located within the range of 5 to 12 kms to the north of Waka town. The PA is composed of six villages where the Malta, the Maty a, the Manna and the Neftegna reside. (The Manja reside on the upper and colder area which is nearer to V/aka town). A village called Gachiri I this PA is inhabited only by the Manja whereas in Wolilli Ullage the Manja, Malla and nqftegna live side by side. The Manja and Malla reside together iri Doduma village whereas Shallo, Shaph and Arqa villages are inhabited only by the Malla (see! sketch map of the Koysha PA in Appendix A). In the PA there are communal grazing areas for imdia - a practice whereby all the animals of a certain hamlet are pooled together during da>!time and are taken care of by each household in turns. There are also bush land and forests winch the Manja use for wood collection and occasional hunting. There is no formal school in the PA but there are two non-formal schools and a health post, both established and being run by AAE. i A total of 311 households constitute the Koysha PA of which about 30 percent are the Manja. Average household size is 3.9 for Koysha PA and 4.4 for 10 PAs around Koysha (AAE, 1994). This is lower than the average family size for North Omo Zone, which is 4.7 persons (CSA, 1996).

23 The Social System i There is a very complex social classification system among the Dawro. According to this classification, there are generally four strata of people: Malla, Naftegna (synonymous with Amhara, though not composed only of the Amhara\ artisans (Mana, Degellay and Chinasha) and the Manja. Of these, the Malla and the Manja are the major concerns of this study. Before

6 its incorporation to the Amhara dominated system of the Ethiopian empire, this local stratification might have been composed of only the other.three strata. The Neftegna were the most prestigious class of governors (composed of various people of non- Dawro origins such as Amhara, Oromo, Kafa, Gurage etc). This class was superimposed on the Dawro local stratification after its incorporation in 1891. However, after the 1974 revolution and particularly after the change of government in 1991, the Neftegna have ceased to exist as a class. Hence, currently it is no more a stratum. The Malla form the most prestigious and dominant indigenous social stratum of farmers. The term Malla has a dual meaning in two different social contexts. The first one is in relation to the views o f’outsiders' (the Neftegna, the artisans2, and the Manja). The term Malla in this context refers to the entire Dawro society excluding the above mentioned category of people and is almost synonymous with the term Dawro itself. It still implies, as in the past, that the social group called Malla are privileged "Dawro citizens" as opposed to the other social groups such as the Manja and the artisans who did not have access to economic resources and political offices. This has changed since the incorporation. The people who were referred to as Malla in the above sense (in relation to "outsiders" and in terms of occupation) are sub-divided into three equally ranked social units (except for the Kawka royal clan) in the context of internal classification of the Dawro society. That is, they are sub-divided into Malla, Dogalla and Amara groups3. Each of these units: Malla, Dogalla and Amara consists of various clans. Each clan maintains myths about its place of origin as to where the apical ancestor is believed to have migrated to Dawro land. The stratum of artisans is composed of the blacksmiths, tanners and potters. (I could not find any local generic term for these groups of people). These people hold low economic and social status due to bigotry held against their occupation and behavioral prejudices. The Manja are descendants of the former hunter-gatherers in Dawro land and are now in the process of transformation to agricultural production. Currently the Manja do not do much hunting. Instead Manja men are involved in charcoal production, woodwork and subsistence farming as complementary forms of livelihood. The women and children collect firewood for sale, a major source of cash income for the Manja households. During the kingdom of the Dawro the Manja earned their living as wood-workers and hunters. After the incorporation they started honey production; and rudimentary crop cultivation. Following the establishment of towns after the incorporation, the Manja diversified their income source to firewood selling and charcoal production which are currently the most important source of cash income for the Manja. After the revolution, they were given plots of land and

2There are some clans from the artisan groups who claim Dawro origin.

^Throughout this report, unless specified otherwise, the term Malla is used in the former sense i.e to refer to all "free citizens of Dawro society" as a stratum different from the Neftegna, artisan > and Manja. were forced into permanent settlement, and increasingly became involved in agriculture. Thus, at present, though Manja agriculture is smaller in scale than the Malla, more and more Manja households are tending to earn significant portions of their livelihood from agriculture. In short, the livelihood of the Manja is being transformed from hunting through other forest-based activities to agriculture. Tradition dictates the "do's and don'ts" of each social group. There is also self and mutual attribution of traits to each group. Belonging to any one of these groups sets a mental framework of behavior by limiting what one has to leam and practice; and the general livelihood one can persue. I hope this brief description of social stratification in Dawro will give some idea about the difference in the backgrounds of two study groups whose local knowledge of crop production is the main concern of this study.

2.4 Overview of Economic Activities

Subsistence agricultural production (mixed farming that combines crop production and animal husbandry) is the mainstay of rural livelihood for the majority of the people. There are also various non-agricultural activities from which some households obtain significant income. There is a cultural association between one's social stratum and the economic activity one pursues. According to this traditional Dawro "social division of labour", of the three social strata of Dawro beriefly discussed above, the Malla are associated with farming and artisanship (smiths, potters and tanners) and the Manja with hunting and woodworking.

Though there has been tremendous social change which undermined the traditional association between occupation and social strata in Dawro, some aspects of it are still strong. For instance, currently as in the past, the Malla depend mainly on mixed farming and do craft work (other than tanning, pottery and smithing), honey production and petty trading as activities subsidiary to agriculture. Many Malla youngsters also migrate to Jimma town seeking temporary employment as coffee harvesters in the times between the main farming seasons. The artisans practice agriculture as supplementary to their craft works whereas the Manja collect firewood for sale, conduct occasional hunting, produce and sell charcoal, play some musical instruments on important occasions such as funerals and produce wooden furniture and handles for farm tools. The Manja also engage in agricultural activities as complementary to all these means of livelihood.

Since Dawro is part of the ensete culture area, cultivation of ensete is very important. However, ensete is tHe most important crop only for the highlanders whereas maize is the most important crop in mid and lowland Dawro. In fact, economic importance of crops varies not only across agro-climajtic zones but also across social groups (see chapter three for ranking of economic importance of major crops in the three agro-climatic zones). Households in Dawro grow the following *crops depending on climate and agro-ecological zones. The major crops include maize, ensete, tejf, tarot sorghum, coffee, cotton, peas, haricot beans, peas, barley, wheat, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and various types of vegetables and spices. In terms of livestock, cattle, goats, sheep, poultry and equines are kept. Almost all of the crop varieties and livestock breeds are ’indigenous'. Introduction of modem agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and improved seed varieties is at its infancy in Dawro. Cultivation is conducted with hand tools (hoe, stick tools etc) and the plough. My survey of agricultural tools and household furniture indicates that most farmers use traditional tools made either by local artisans or by the households themselves for home use (see Appendix B for farming tools). 3. INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE OF CROP PRODUCTION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter local knowledge on the production of five most important crops used as both food and cash crops in midland Dawro will be discussed in detail. Farmers' technical skills and philosophy to be discussed for each crop include: land preparation, planting/sawing, weeding, pest/disease/wild beast damage control mechanism, harvesting, storage, and seed planting as well as material selection. In addition to the discussions on the technical knowledge, social and cultural issues that influence farmers* decisions in crop production will also be highlighted.

To begin with, recent studies on African farming practices characterize them as more flexible than systematic and ‘improvised performance’ than annual re-enactment of a template; (Richards, 11989; 1994; Fairehead, 1990). On the other hand, Wells (1994) argues that farming practices vjary systematically by farmers groups rather than randomly by individual actors. I i Considering that there are two groups of farmers with whom this study is especially concerned, it may be necessary to raise a specific set of questions in light of the above arguments. Do the farming practices (and local knowldge by implication) of the two fanner groups show systematic variation by farmer groups or random flexibility by individual farmer? Is farming in Koysha more a planned activity or ‘improvised performance’? Given that fanning is so deeply embedded in the social, economic, political and institutional contexts (Scoones et.al., 1996), to what extent are the farming styles of the Malla and Manja fanners, (who significantly differ inthese aspects but share more or less similar natural environments, similar? These are some of the issues that will be considered in this chapter. In this chapter I wish to explore the extent to which the: socio-economic backgrounds of the farmers are related to the technical aspects involved i^ farming practices or what is commonly called “indigenous technical knowledge” or “local agricultural knowledge”. The basis for the discussion will be comparative case studies of the production practices of four major crops, taking into account the relative importance of each crop to each farmer group.

3.2 Case Studies of Production Practices of Major Crops

Farmers in Koysha use their own set of criteria to rate the relative importance of each crop for the household economy. These include importance as household food, cash value, security crop and area of land they cover. The two farmer groups rated their crops in order of importance as follows.

Malla (highland): ensete - taro - pea - barley - wheat. Malla (midland): maize - teff - ensete - taro - sorghum.

10 Malla (lowland): maize - taro - teff - sorghum - cotton. Manja (midland): Maize -sorghum - ensete - teff-taro. Since sharing a similar natural environment is an important basis of our comparison here, the farming practices can be compared only to the Malla of mid altitude. This is mainly because the Manja I have known so far live only in dashua (mid-altitude) area where they are nearto markets and towns. It is also commonly said that they cannot withstand both cold and hot weather conditions in high and lowlands. j 01 the important crops grown in midland Koysha, particularly in Wolloli village, where the two farmer groups live side by side, production practices of only four crops will be schematically discussed, i.e. three most important crops for each group. Accordingly, the case studies will be on maize, which is most important for both groups, sorghum and teff which are second most important crops for the Manja and midland Malla respectively, and ensete which is the third most important crop for both the Manja and the midland Malla. However, it has to be noted that there is variation between households within each stratum in ranking the economic importance of crops; the ranking discussed is the view of the majority, and not everyone's.

3.2.1 The Case of Maize Production i i In Koysha (and in mid and lowland Dawro in general) maize appears to cover nearly three-quarters of the cropping in asura season. This is particularly true of the Malla households for whom it is much more important than it is for the Manja. Although maize is the most important crop for both groups, we need to note from the outset that the Manja and Malla farmers differ in production objectives for maize. The Malla produce it as principal household food for most of the year, and also as cash source, whereas the Manja produce it as supplementary household food and cash source to be sold at a “green stage”. These goal differences are reflected on the efforts the two farmer groups put into maize production. Land Preparation: Land preparation for maize involves mainly clearing and ploughing. In midland Koysha nearly every field has to be cleared every season. Clearing is more difficult if fields are allowed to remain fallow for sometime which is more the case with the Manja than Malla. This means the Manja have to do more clearing, partly because they practice 'land-rotation fallowing' more than the Malla, and partly because their lands are nearer to forests where vegetation growth is faster. Maize plots are ploughed once or twice between December and February (most Manja plough between September and December because they sow earlier). Soil and field types, oxen and labour availability and the fanning goal of the household influence the pattern and frequency of ploughing, and the technology (hoe or plough) to be used in ploughing. Ploughing has a number of purposes such as controlling weeds, allowing for proper aeration, breaking soils so that they are soft enough for crops, and incorporating manure and crop residue to the soil. For instance, the first ploughing is done while the soil is still moist so that the weeds germinate and are dried by the subsequent extended sun heat before they flower. One practice in Koysha, which is contrary to agronomic recommendation in land preparation, is that both Manja and Malta farmers bum the slashed weeds and dry crop residues just before they start sowing. The farmers say that burning is good for soil fertility, on the contrary agronomists say that burning kills nitrogen-fixing bacteria and facilitates wind erosion (Ato Moges Bekele, AAE’s agronomist; personal communication). In this connection, the long prevailing norm of accepting formal

11 I I

scientific knowledge as universally correct may put pressure for accepting the above-mentioned agronomic view on board. However, it seems that there is a real possibility that the seemingly backward and "harmful" practices of farmers may have their own advantages in specific conditions such as midland Dawro. Sowing: In Koysha the sowing season of maize is from February (in midland) to March (lowland area) in climatically normal years. The Manja sow a little earlier (October to January) because first, most of them sell their maize at the green stage. (The price of green maize is higher if the crop matures before that of the Malla) and also because most of them use the land in the second season which starts in June. This requires that the maize has to be ready in June. For this also they have to sow earlier. This practice is possible because their lands are slightly more moist than those of the Malla-due to differences in the vegetation and microecology. Farmers say that early rains favour weed infestation, and late rains cause failure to form a cob. To avoid both hazards farmers manipulate their farming calendar. However, the knowledge of "the best sowing date" is only necessary but not sufficient in determining the exact date of sowing. The exact date of sowing varies between households, depending on each household’s perception of the condition of the soils, availability of labour, oxen, and seed and so on. Each farmer has to be attentive to the actions of others around him. If a person sows early or late than others his crops will be at risk of wild animal attack alone. Hence, each farmer has to try hard to harmonize the sowing calendar at least at village level to share and/or avoid risks. This is in line with Barlett's (1989) argument that farming decisions are not made independently of the decisions made by other farmers. Moreover, involvement in large work groups which operate turn by turn means that not everybody can sow at the same time. Farmers’ maize spacing in Koysha is much more dense than agronomic recommendations4. By observing the broadcast maize on the farmers' fields, the agronomists remarked that maize spacing in Koysha is much denser than recommended. The farmers say that they thin some plants during the three weeding operations. Against this philosophy agronomists argue that thinning a plant after it had already consumed water, sunlight and' minerals is a waste of these resources. Against such an agronomic view, farmers argue that under their uncertain environmental conditions it is unwise to space only the required number of seeds from the beginning because some seeds may fail to germinate at all or germinate as weak plants, some may be damaged during the three weeding operations (see below), and still others may die due to diseases, moisture stress or other reasons. Even from among those that survive all these troubles, some may 'fai| to form cobs. Expecting this, farmers plant extra seeds as contingency and apply subsequent thinning at eVery important stage of growth. I Maize spacing is denser in lowlands than midlands because the soils are more fertile, the climate is more favorable to maize and there is no seed shortage in the latter. Within midland, the Manja maize spacing is sparser than that of the Malla due to seed shortage, and due to the Manja view that in their’.microclimate maize does not do well if it is not sparsely spaced. Farmers continue thinning maize until they find the spacing appropriate for their fields, leaving only those plants that have formed cobs so as to ensure that every plant in the field bears at least some seeds. Farmers also argue that, even the plants that are thinned away are not wasted

4 This viev; of agricultural scientists is what I gathered from agronomists Ato Yisahak Baredo (AAE) and Ato Gemechu Gedeno, (FARM Africa) during a field tour in Koysha where extensive discussions with farmers:took place.

12 because they serve as good animal feed. While the scientists' arguments may prove sound under controlled experimental plots common in agricultural research settings, which Richards (1989) calls "out of time and space", the farmer's approach of selecting the 'fittest cro$' on the spot appears to be a coping strategy to deal with agricultural production under uncertainties. i Weeding: Most farmers in Koysha weed maize three times5. The first and the secpnd weeding, which they call babaka in Dawrotsua (Amharic Shilishalo) are conducted with ox-iplough. Note that nearly every household conducts babaka with oxen. Those who do not own oxen can borrow oxen for a day or two during babaka. Nonetheless, most of the Manja do babaka only once because of oxen shortage. The first babaka operation is conducted after about four to six weeks after sowing and the second fifteen days after the first. A month after the second babaka follows a hand weeding, at which time extensive thinning of unnecessary maize plants and uprooting of weeds occurs. Babaka is the practice of plowing between young maize plants that grow scattered in the plot (because they were broadcast). During babaka a lot of maize is damaged or broken. Farmers are not surprised by this because they had made some allowance for this during sowing. But agronomists disapprove of babaka, particularly on broadcast fields because it causes breaking of a lot of plants and damages the roots of the surviving crop (Ato Gemechu, agronomist; personal communication). Farmers insist that they will never abandon babaka because, first they cannot afford the labour to weed all their fields by hand, and secondly they believe that the surviving plants (which did not sustain serious damage to their roots in the babaka process) will be wind resistant, since they have already experienced and survived a challenge. Though the two groups of farmers differ in labour allocation for maize weeding, both of them note that timely execution of all three weeding operations is critical for good yields. In addition to weeding methods discussed above, fanners use fallowing, various other cultivation techniques such as manipulating the cropping season to suppress weeds. By and large, the timing and number of weedings and the application of other methods of weed suppression varies according to the household's access to work parties, oxen availability, actual weed infestation, labour conditions of the household and perception of the value of maize. The Manja and Malla households differ significantly in mobilizing the household labour for maize weeding. Because weeds are one of the most important constraints to maize production, the Malla try their best to utilize all available household labour for proper and timely weeding of maize. They also organize work parties for this. In contrast, the Manja have limited labour for weeding since a significant portion of labour is taken up in wood collection and selling, even at the peak agricultural labour bottleneck periods. Mainly because of labour shortage most of the Manja maize plants suffer from weed infestations. Observing one such Manja maize field, Ato Gemechu, in his capacity as an agronomist, estimated that the crop in the infested area had already lost about 50 percent of its yield. It has to be noted that it is not because the Manja

As a major agricultural undertaking only men and boys do the weeding. However, in some cases the Manja women may be involved in the weeding. This does not exempt them from collecting and selling fuel wood.

13 fanners do not understand that crop yields decreases if the field is not properly weeded. Rather, it is because they perceive higher (and immediate) opportunity cost of the labour invested in firewood collection and selling, as compared to investing in crop production. Wild animal control: attack by wild animals is a serious production constraint in Koysha. It is more serious on the Manja fields because they are nearer to the forests. A Manja named Ato Ure expresses the condition laying, ’’For us it is very tough to guard our maize from wild animals”. If we keep our maize crop in the fields until it dries like that of the Malla, we will lose most of it to wild animals. We are hence forced to sell it at its green stage.” Perhaps this may be one reason why most Manja give less emphasis to maize because it is the most susceptible crop. Table 3.1 presents data on some major wild animals along with the crops they damage and farmers' control mechanism (cf. AAE, 1993a). Table 3.1. Wild animal damage and Farmers' control mechanisms

[.Name of thejwild crops damaged ; type of damage control mechanism j Gudunta maize, taro, ensete, feed on meristematic firing nearby forests, scaring, (wild pig) etc tissue, seeds guarding, hunting | Geleshua maize, sorghum, same as above guarding, trapping, chasing I (Baboon) bean, teff, banana etc., away from nearby forests D Karea (monkey) same as above same as above same as above Kutaria r incize, taro s.potato, feeds on seeds and scaring, filling porcupine .(porcupine) j ■ eti&te, ett' - tubers holes, scaring, killing by '■(nrfrc'ilpinc), i smoking, guarding maize, sorghum, feed seeds guarding, chasing away It Gashua maize, taro, s.potato, feed on seeds and scaring, guarding, hunting teff tuber Worakana green maize seeds guarding, scaring, trapping (fox)

D Chaja (ccvaie cut Igreen maize seeds scaring 1 Mahia (leopard) fcreeri maize seeds scaring

As most ofj these arymals damage the crops at night, protection is more difficult. The common control mechanisms against those that attack in day-time such as birds, baboons, monkeys and foxes, are guarding and chasing them away from the nearby forest to far away areas. For those that damage at night, scaring with various noises, and trapping systems are employed. Unfortunately, all these mechanism^are not sufficient and in some cases people have to guard

i night. Guarding at night is men's work both among the Malla and Manja. Since staying every night outside the home until the crop is harvested is difficult (and also interferes with the reproductive sphere), farmers, particularly the Manja enter sharing arrangements with a partner so that they guard them alternately. J . i ! > e iiecatisr ul thjs ehal'eii&e

The Manja are especially knowledgeable in identifying the movement of most wild beasts and trapping and hunting them. This is hardly surprising given their age-old experience with hunting. To make use of this knowledge at times a Manja may be invited by a Malla to settle around nearby forest areas so that they serve as a sort of buffer zone against wild animal attack. Sometimes the Malla ask the Manja friends/clients to get rid of wild animals by nunting them down. The social organizational implication of such animal attacks is that it encourages villagers to cooperative action such as sowing at about the same time, chasing the animals by joint venture and, in general,cooperation between the Malla and the Manja. Harvesting and Storage: The Malla and Manja farmers differ in the date and size of harvest, and post harvest crop management owing to the variation in micro-ecology, agronomic practices, planting dates, consumption patterns6, and scale of production. The Malla harvest their maize from mid September to October whereas most of the Manja finish their maize by consuming and selling green maize between April and July. Before starting harvesting, the Malla fanners make sure that the maize is dry enough and is not spoiled due to moisture or is not too dry so that the husk will be soft enough for piling up in the doria (an indigenous granary, see below) Both groups of farmers observe the position of the moon (full moon or no moon is the right time to harvest) as they believe that a crop which is harvested at other ;times will be susceptible to weevil infestations. . In Dawro there is an association between agro-climatic zones and storage methods. Accordingly, doria is associated with lowlands, yessia with midlands and diyia with highlands (see pictures in appendix B). Doria is a form of storage constructed on the branches of a living tree, yessia - a little hut which resembles a crib, and diyia is a cylindrical shaped container constructed from bamboo. While the Malla use one of these depending upon their agro-climates, the Manja often store their crops on ulia - piling up on the ground. Ato Kaficho {Manja) says that they pile their crops on ulia because there is no problem of termites in their area. The reason also seems to relate with the amount of harvest. The Manja generally accord less attention to storage because their harvest is small and most of their crops are either! consumed or sold soon after harvest. When they have a bigger harvest some of them store in yessia, but very rarely. For instance, Ato Kalsu {Manja) stored his maize in yessia because he had a lot of maize to be stored but his son Kanito piled his small amount of maize in Ulia, inside his epsete fields. Of the three storage methods, doria is given special attention here because of the challenge it faced recently from agricultural science. The doria of the Malla is a granary constructed on the ------6 Both the Malla and Manja consume green maize but the Manja’s c&se is more pronounced because most of their maize is finished at the green stage for consumption and sale. branches of a living*tree. Indigenous trees such as Mokota, Ocha, kankala, gelchecha, oclonta etc are planted (commonly in the front yard) and are carefully shaped for this purpose. Part of this shaping is pruning the tree at a certain height so that it offshoots branches rather than growing straight. On these branches a few sticks are laid horizontally on which to pile the maize. Then maize with husks which is harvested (cut) with about half a meter of stalk is carefully piled up in a pyramidal shape. The storage could be up to 2-5 meters high from the ground is reconstructed every one or two years. Depending on the economic status and annual harvest capacity ofthe household, there could be separate doria for various purposes such as for home consumption, for early selling for the payment of land tax, and a bigger doria to be kept ideally until people see the tendency of the next year’s harvest. The Malla indigenous method of storage has faced challenges from formal agricultural science as it was evaluated to be inferior to an improved crib. On that ground, the AAE's extension wing is introducing an "improved crib" (see pictures in appendix C). Though the farmers’ adoption rate of the improved crib is yet to be seen, some farmers have already started to argue that their doria has advantages over the crib. The following is the summary of a discussion between two fanners - one on-looker and one AAE client fanner who had constructed a crib but who did not start using it - and Ato Yishak (AAE's agronomist in charge of the cribs) about the advantages of their respective storage approaches. The farmers argued that the doria was economical in terms of wood and labour requirements because just a few sticks and a couple of hours work will suffice to make the store ready every year, whereas cribs require eucalyptus and nails which often have to be purchased, and that it takes weeks to buildja crib. The agronomist argued that since the crib serves for many years it is natural that it will require,more effort to construct. However, the farmers did not accept that the crib serves/ longer than {he doria. On the contrary, the farmers insisted that doria was a life time store whereas the crib may last for only 5-7 years; and has to be rebuilt and is, thus, expensive in the farmers' view.:', The fanners also argued that the crib has limited space and may not accommodate a lot of maize, whereas the.doria was flexible enough to enable one to store as much maize as one produced and that one can easily construct more of it on any nearby tree whenever necessary. The farmers also perceived doria to be stronger than the crib, since the former was built on a living tree with multi-directional roots, whereas the latter is artificially made and is, in the farmers' view, not as strong as the former. Yet another point of argument was about the susceptibility of the two storage systems to weevil attacks. The farmers held the view that since the doria was well ventilated, being in the open air (it is thatched only at the top) it is less susceptible to weevils, whereas the crib in which the dehusked maize is amassed in a hut could be comfortable for the weevils because it may be warm. The agronomist on his part argued that the doria is more weevil-prone because a pest which infested the crop in a doria one year may remain on the host tree and reinfest the crop the following year also. Farmers rejected this by arguing that since there is a gap of the rainy season in between, the rain will kill all the weevils before the next year's storing time. For instance, Ato

16 Bekele {Malla informant) said that his maize was damaged by weevils in 1993.. But then he stored on the same tree for the next two consecutive years and nothing happened. Moreover, the farmers argued that if reinfestation happens, it will also happen to the crib since the maize will be stored in the same crib for several years. i Closely related to susceptibility to weevils, was the issue of rodents. Farmers argued that the crib is more susceptible to rat damage, particularly because the dehusked maize is simply amassed in the crib as opposed to the tight piling up of the maize with husks in the doria. If a rat manages to enter such a 'free house' once, it will be very difficult to get rid of it unless the whole storage is dismantled. Moreover, the 'foundation tree' for the doria has only one pole whereas the crib has six poles and gives more options for the rats to climb up. The AAE agronomist said that a protective piece of tin will be fixed to each of the poles of the crib to thwart rats from climbing up the store. The farmer responded to this by saying that this could be done more easily for doria since it is much easier to fix a protective piece of tin to one poll than to six. Eventually the agronomist was convinced by the farmers' arguments and promised to encourage AAE to fix the protective piece of tin to the doria, instead of only insisting on a complete change to cribs whose adoption rate was not yet satisfactory to AAE. The farmers were very happy to observe such flexibility. The final concern of the farmers in connection with the change of storage was the gender aspect of property control. The farmers (men) aired their worry (albeit informally) that the crib may give women uncontrolled access to the maize stock, because all the dehusked maize is put in one hut. With the doria a husband apportions what is to be used by women for home consumption right at harvest and puts it in a separate doria. It is not easy for women to access additional maize without being discovered. This implies that technical practices such as storage are not based on technical criteria alone, but are also socio-politically embedded. Variety, Seed Selection and Preservation: most farmers prefer selecting and preserving their own seeds rather than purchase seeds whose pedigree they do not know. When asked about the varieties of maize they identify and grow, the farmers' I consulted in Koysha mentioned only the local varieties of maize7 whose characterization was based primarily on seed colour: sutalia (red); borania (blue) and moshoria (white). The Malla prefer moshoria because it has a good quality and yields greater quantity of flour, whereas the other two colour groups are not preferable in this regard. Most Manja do not consider criteria related with flour because they consume and sell their maize at the green stage. There are also some maize varieties identified with some villages in Dawro and these are equally regarded by both groups of farmers. For example, Ando maize - characterized by high amount of flour content, Gendo maize characterized by multi- directional strong rooting system and is said to be wind resistant and

7 AAE had done trials with improved maize varieties (Beletech, BH140 and a most common local variety in midland and Awassa 511, katumani and most common local variety in lowland) in 1993 (AA- E, 1994b). But none of the improved varieties has become popular and local varieties are still dominant. Since 1996 a new extension package (improved varieties and agronomic practices) have been of greater concern for MOA along with the new extension policy. It will measure its impact at this time.

17 Asali maizs characterized by long height and strong roots which is not easily attacked by wild animals8. The farmers' criteria for variety identification and preference are flour content, root strength (wind and wild animal attack resistance), seed colour and taste, cob size and softness for grinding with indigenous stone 'mills* (yvota). These influence farmers’ decision during seed selection. The main difference between the two farmer groups in their consideration of variety selection is that while the Malla give the highest value to the flour quality of a variety, the Manja give the highest value to its resistance to wild animal attacks. Based on the above criteria, often during harvesting (and sometimes during threshing) fanners in Koysha select seeds for maize from the best preferred variety - one with big cob, big seed size, not infested with pests and not attacked by diseases.

3.2.2. The Case of Sorghum Production Sorghum {maldua or dalila) is the second most important crop for most of the Manja, whereas it is the fourth most important crop for the Malla. Among the Malla sorghum was until very recently known as the crop of the poor, as expressed by the local saying, manqu maldua otse (“a poor person cultivates sorghum”). Even to this day it is to some extent true that sorghum is associated with the Manja and poorer Malla. Nonetheless, since the 1973 famine, when people suffered from serious casualties, and which caused general economic depression, sorghum has gained in importance. This was particularly because the death of oxen and loss of other assets forced many people to “behave like the poor”. More recently, due to the increasing price of maize in the market and prevalence of ensete bacterial wilt, most households substituted part of their maize and ensete food quota by sorghum. In both cases sorghum production expanded. However, people from different wealth and status groups grow sorghum for different purposes. In a group discussion with Malla farmers, there were disagreements regarding which wealth group of Malla sorghum is more important for. More people voiced the view that as family food sorghum is more important for poorer Malla; and for richer Malla sorghum is crucial as an ingredient for making beer, since the richer Malla organize work parties more frequently than the poor Malla. The Malla differ from the Manja in that the former do not organize work parties as often as the Manja; and that Malla work parties can be organized without beer, unlike those of the Manja where beer is an essential ingredient. On this account, sorghum is more important for the Manja than the Malla. Sorghum is the pillar of agricultural operation among the Manja who conduct most of their agricultural operations through work parties. The Manja brew local beer not only for work parties but also for home consumption. Ato Dayassa {Manja informant) stressed this by

8 Ando, Gendo and Chalisho are villages in Koysha where these varieties of maize were believed to have grown first and then diffused to other villages such as Koysha. saying "Sorghum is our milk" to indicate that the Manja, most of whom do not own any cows even to this day, drink the local beer from sorghum as they would if it were milk. As a matter of tradition, the Manja are used to food made from sorghum rather than maize. There are also some practical reasons for the Manja bias towards sorghum production. The first one is that sorghum's low labour demand is accommodative to the Manja labour pool. Cultivating only once in April suffices for land preparation for sorghum. After about 15 days it is sown (late April). After about two months the first hand weeding of uprooting weeds is conducted. After fifteen days the second weeding (babaka) is conducted either by hand or by ox plough. Finally, removing of dry leaves, cutting grass from the field and thinning are conducted sometime in September. Generally speaking, sorghum weeding is much easier than maize weeding. The fact that wild animal attack is less serious on sorghum seems also to be another reason why the Manja emphasize on sorghum. From table 3.1 we learn that, out of nine wild animals mentioned, only three attack sorghum while all the nine attack maize.-Hence, it is adaptive for the Manja to finish their maize at a green stage and keep sorghum in the field. The most threatening attackers of sorghum are birds. The Manja know specific varieties of sorghum which are not favored by birds and other wild animals. For instance, budela which is the variety preferred by most Manja is said to be least attractive to birds. In short, il seems that environmental constraints, labour conditions, food habits and farming history influence the preference of the Manja to sorghum. Sorghum is harvested in November. Weevils and rodents are the major problems during the storage of sorghum. Fine twining of harvesting time with 'non-infestation position' of the moon depending on either full moon or no moon time, is one weevil control mechanism employed by both groups of farmers. The Malla farmers in particular complain that whatever is done, sorghum will be infested by weevils after March. Hence, most farmers have to either consume or sell their sorghum stock after March. j However, both groups of farmers have to preserve seeds to be sown and protect them from weevils, rodents and any other damage by employing a variety of techniques. More attention is given to weevils because sorghum is easily destroyed by them. One or a combination of the following methods are used by fanners of both groups to preserve sorghum seeds. iOne method is blending the seed with slurry and putting it into a container. This is based on the knowledge that the taste and smell of the slurry is repellent for weevils. Another method is mixing the seed with "unattackable" crops such as teff and placing it in a container. Keeping less weevil-prone varieties (see below) is also another strategy. Generally proper ventilation and avoidance of warmth as well as moisture around the store are practiced to protect seeds from damage. Fanners identified about ten varieties of sorghum. Almost all farmers know more varieties than they grow. The following table presents local varieties of sorghum as identified b.y farmers in Koysha.

19 Table 3.2. Local sorghum varieties and their characteristics

variety, ^ colour seed size other characteristics mostly used ] remarks for Dalkia j red big - wind resistant -beer grows mostly in i - longer growth - bread mid altitude 1i 1 period Tsompa ’. white - - - roasting - -bread

Gershua gray big - - bread grows in midland - enjera Dapha Dalila red small thin, short stalk baby feed - Budela brown/ big strong stalk -beer - black - bread white medium - - enjera now extinct I Gilda l - bread Sila ! white small sweet stem - grows in lowland

Burzia ! white big easily attacked by - grows in lowland i i weevils KambataJ white medium imported from delicious - Kambata area Malla foods

Of these Dalkia, burzia and sila are said to be drought resistant. Dalkia is easily damaged by weevils, farmers said it is because of its big seed size. By the same logic of seed size farmers said that Sila and Daph-Dalila are not easily damaged by weevils because they are of small seed size. However, not all farmers identify all of these varieties. On average the Manja farmers identified more sorghum varieties than the Malla probably because sorghum is more important for them rhan it is for the Malla. The two groups of fanners differ in their preference of varieties. The three most preferred varieties for the Manja are budela, dalkia, dapha-dalila\ whereas kambata, dapha-dalila and dalkia were prefered by the Malla in this order. The Manja prefer budela because it is not easily Attacked by wild animals, dalkia because it is best for beer, and dapha dalila as baby feed since most of them do not have milk for their babies. The priorioties accorded by the Malla to these varieties are based on a variety's taste when made in to bread, enjera (the Manja do not bake enjera at all) and kolo (roasting). 3.2.3 The Case of reproduction As indicated earlier teff (eragrostis abyssinica), gashia in Dawrotsua has differential status for the two farmer groups. It is second in importance for midland Malla and fourth in;importance for the Manja in the same agro-climatic zone. The Malla produce teff mainly as cashj crop. They also use it to make enjera for major festivities such as Easter. By contrast, most of the Manja do not earn much cash from teff mainly because they have alternative cash sources and unlike the Malla, never use teff for enjera because they do not make enjera at their homes. The Manja extensively use some varieties of teff (see below) as an ingredient for borde (a local beer). Land preparation for teff begins with clearing either a plot to be newly cultivated or cultivating fallow land or a field on which other crops grew last season. More than 75 percent of Dawro teff is produced in the balgua and asura seasons (July - October). Generally speaking, clearing is more difficult for the Manja because of their proximity to forests where vegetation growth is faster and because they practice 'land-rotation fallowing'. They are compensated by requirement of less ploughing. If cleared well, ploughing once is enough for Manja's forest soils while the Malla have to plough the land three times for teff. The first ploughing takes place in late May or early June, the second in late June and the third in July. Both sow it from July through August. Some of the early maturing varieties such as machia and daria (see below) are sown even in early September. Weeding is not that much demanding in teff production; uprooting weeds by hand once in September or October is enough. Harvesting takes place between October and November depending on the sowing date and growth period of a variety. Commonly both the Manja and Malla organize work parties for teff harvesting. Then it is stored in doria {.Malla farmers ) or ulia {Manja farmers). The three main considerations during_storage of teff are protection from termites by avoiding contact with ground, protection from rats by storing in clearer areas and protection from rain or moisture by thatching the store with grass. Planting material is selected from a well performing spot in the field, which is bundled separately at the time of harvesting. It is never threshed until the time of sowing. Farmers identified and characterized the local varieties of teff as follows. a) Dortsa: white straw and white seed b) D alas ha: red straw, white seed c) Yilga: grey straw. It easily loses seed in the field due to shattering, if not harvested on time. d) Manissia: red straw, white seed e) Bukula: white straw, first class white seed. This was meant as tribute to Dawro kings and the Neftegna administrators to be given after their conquest. f) Yemisia: white seed and white straw. Its history indicates that Yemisia was imported from Konta - southwestern neighbors of the Dawro. g) Daria: grey straw, red seed (not bright). Early maturing types (8 weeks).

21 i l h) Macfiia: bright red seed. This is believed to have medicinal value against kufia (cough), megua (common cold), oshincha (influenza), yichua (anaemia) and sela (gastritis) '. For such purposes soup is prepared from mechia floor, honey and butter. Since this is an early maturing variety the fastest maturing variety is often sown on a plot of maize and consumed at the green stage in late August or even early September. i) Hartsua: white straw, seed is mixture of white and red colours. Hartsua, Daria and tnachia grow usually in colder areas (midland). Daria and Machina need shorter growth periods. The Manja grow these varieties more than the Malla. Perhaps their early maturity makes these varieties preferable as they are relatively immediate return. The Manja extensively use these varieties for making borde and bread. Since the Manja frequently organize work parties and they have to prepare beer for every work party, they need these varieties of teff more than the Malla do. Scale ofj production is another major difference between the two fanner groups. While the Manja produce only a small amount (on average 2 bora wolke or half a hectare), the Malla cultivate on average about 5 bora wolke (over a hectare). The two farmer groups also differ in their teff storage, i.e. the Malla store it mostly on doria (piling on lifted bed) whereas the Manja store it in ulia (simply piling on ground). The reason seems to be similar to that of maize. The Manja do not give serious attention to the storage because their harvest is not big and also because :hey will consume or sell their crops soon after harvest. By contrast, the Malla have to be more concerned about storage because they produce a lot of teff and thus have to find durable storage facilities since most of them store maize for months until prices are high in the market.

3.2.4. Th e Case of Enset Production

As indicated earlier in this chapter both the Manja and the Malla in midland Dawro ranked enset (uta) as their third most important crop. Unfortunately this crop has been seriously threatened by a disease locally called wol'o (

In Koysha, as is also the case with most ensete producing areas, every household wants to expand the area under ensete. This is a continuous process that takes place eveiy year, unless arrested by constraints. The ensete clone to be selected for this depends on the purpose of expanding ensete, the structure of the existing ensete population and disease situation. For

9The English terms are rough translations based on characterisation of the illn esses.

22 instance, if one wants to consume ensete as boiled corm, he/she prefers to multiply macha uta ("female ensete") because the conn of macha utta is more tasty. If it is a year of severe ensete disease, a person prefers to multiply atuma uta ("male ensete") clones because these are known to be more disease resistant. Currently most of the ensete population as reported by farmers is composed of the atuma type because either the macha have been destroyed by the disease or people kept on multiplying the atuma for the last few years for fear of disease. One adaptive trend observed in Koysha is that some farmers started purchasing ensete seedlings from a highland PA. This is because they believe that the ensete in highland areas are healthier and seedlings from these are believed to be better than the mid and lowland ones.

In Dawro, as is the case for all e«sete-cultivating populations, ensete is a very important food security crop. It is also one of local status index. Probably because of its economic and social importance, people have an elaborate knowledge of the processes and development stages of ensete production.

Both the Manja and Malla fanners identify five ensete developmental stages. Ideally, it should be harvested at the fifth stage for maximum yield. These stages are: j 1. Halua (Hatsa) - this is the stage were multiplication of an ensete plant begins. The practice of Dawro is quite similar to one of the three vegetative propagation methods iri North Omo described by Kefale and Sandford (1991). As they observed, "After an immamre ensete is uprooted, the pseudo stem is cut off from the corm about 10 cms above where the pseudostem and the conn join. The corm is then split (vertically) into two or more equal parts each of which will be buried in a separate patch of well prepared and manured soil." (p. 25). ! I he land is hand hoed around late August and early September and extensively manured until the halua is planted in October. The Malla manure ensete land more intensively than the Manja because they have better access to manure, and also because this crop is relatively more important for them. It takes about a year and half at this stage.

2. Bashaslma - is a new sucker. In February the following year, about sixteen months after halua planting, the propagated suckers are uprooted and transplanted into a well prepared and manured nursery site where they are planted in rows. However, unlike the situation described by Kefale and Sandford, (1991) in Koysha it is transplanted near the house, usually around the manure ditch between the house and more mature ensete. It takes one to two years to transplant from this.

3. Gardua - Because the spacing is crowded at Bashashua some ensete plants are uprooted after a year (some after two) and transplanted to a newly prepared area or planted inside other more mature ensete where some plants have already been processed (harvested) or will be in the near future. If a household faces labour shortage to transplant it in February, it postpones the operation until April or July. However, if the transplanting from Bashashua to the next stage is done in April or June, the plant is left with more leaves and stem since this is a rainy season and there is no problem of establishment at this time. In both cases the roots are trimmed in all seasons. At this stage it is called gardua. It remains gardua until it reaches a stage where the corm could be boiled or ensete could be processed for kocho.

4. Dubussa - an ensete between the stages of gardua and the vvosa- flowering stage is called dubussa. Ensete at this stage (3-4 years after multiplication began) may be consumed either as boiled corm or as kocho. 1

5. Wossa - this is the last stage where the ensete plant produces inflorescence as indication of full maturity. It takes 5-8 years depending on climate, soil fertility and management input.

Ensete needs intensive care and manuring throughout all the first four stages. Land preparation (digging deep with hoes), transplanting on time, proper trimming of roots and cutting of leaves at the appropriate size, continued thinning wherever the spacing seems crowded, cutting old leaves at the appropriate season, weeding, and other operations are fine twined to particular development stages, soil type, and ecological zone. (See also Kefale and Sandford 1991). A point worth noting is farmers' understanding of the ensete bacterial wilt (EBW). First, there are some farmers who believe that EBW is spread by wind. Hence, they plant trees at the edge of their land so that it hinders spreading of the disease. Second, some farmers believe that human excreta thrown on ensete plot cause EBW as kocho purchased from market which could be made of an infected plant. Hence, faeces are either buried deep or excreted outside ensete areas, often in the bush. (Pit laterines are not common in present day rural Dawro.) Third, most farmers understand that a healthy ensete may also catch EBW if its leaves are cut with a knife or sickle which has been used for cutting leaves from an infected ensete plant. However, this was debated and some farmers who claimed that they experimented and found out that this was not true. Those who think that EBW is transmittable from one plant to another by tools, do everything possible to ensure that no one cuts any leaf from a diseased ensete. Some farmers uproot diseased ensete and either throw it far away from the farm or bum it.

Two main; differences are observed between the Manja and the Malla regarding ensete use and production. First the Manja consume a wild ensete called erpa while the Malla never consume erpa. This! may be a carry over of the Manja’s food gathering past and also the Malla's age-old tradition o f agricultural production. The second difference is that the Malla show more concern for ensete |and undertake more intensive ensete production than the Manja. Probably because of this the Malta's understanding of ensete production practices seems to be qualitatively different from that

i Table 3.3 Malla - Manja differences in Production practices

I ____ I\ Malla Mm,ia i m m 1. Cultivation more by plough Rely on hand tools for cultivation 2. Mobilize HH labour for crop Use significant portion of household labour for production non-agricultural activities 3. Use crop rotation method Use land rotation fallow method 4. Store in doria or yessia Store in ulia 5. Teff is more important than Sorghum is more important than teff sorghum

6. Do not consume erpa (wild ensete Gather and consume (wild enset) erpa 7. Accept delayed return from Prefer immediate return from labour investment in agriculture

There exist some cultural, socio-economic and historical differences between the two groups of farmers which may serve as explanatory variables for these contrasts. These include natural environment (soils, moisture, wild animal attack), resource endowment and use pattern (land, labour, livestock), food habit and consumption patterns, farming history, experiences and associated knowledge, and ideologies. Related to the differences in settlement patterns (see Data, 1997) Manja and Malla fields differ regarding environmental factors such as soil moisture, landscape, vulnerability to wild animal damage, and microecology in general. Based on their knowledge of these conditions the behavior of each group may be seen as a strategy to tap opportunities and avoid hazards. Nevertheless, the environmental factors do not wholly explain the differences, because there are some Malla households who inhabit more or less similar agro-ecology to the Manja but whose practices are similar to the rest of the Malla. This calls for additional explanation. The fact that the Malla own more livestock, particularly oxen, explains why more Malla cultivate larger plots of land for their relatively larger-scale crop production. By contrast, the

25 Manja who often do not own any livestock, have to depend on hand cultivation. This means they cannot cultivate large plots for any crop. In other words, availability of capital in the form of oxen, reinforces variation in the farming practices between the two groups. Another difference is that while Malla households mobilize most of their household labour for farming operations, a significant portion of the Manja households' labour is spent in wood gathering and selling, charcoal production and wood working. This is due to a differential perception of the opportunity costs of labour and of alternative cash income. For the Manja, the return from labour inputs in wood collection is more immediate as compared to that from farming, whereas the Malla households do not give as much attention as the Manja to immediacy of return. The Manja’s general preference of activities with immediate return may be a result !of their forager background which fits in with Woodbum's (1990) thesis associating foragersjwith “immediate return” and agriculturalists with “delayed return” to investment. i A furthejr contrast between the two farmer groups is that, while the Malla practice crop rotation, the Manja use 'land rotation fallow* to enhance soil fertility. This may be attributed to disparities in asset ownership, level of agricultural intensification and labour availability (see Data, 1997 Chap. 4). Crop rotation, being a more intensive form of fertilizing mechanism as compared to 'land rotation fallow' (Boserup, 1965 in Richards, 1985), may be a product of the Malta's more intensive agriculture as compared to that of the Manja, whose agricultural production appears to be more extensive. The Manja m d Malla also differ in the technology of post-harvest crop management which is clearly articulated in the storage system. While the Malla store their harvested crops in doria or yessia, the Manja store on ulia. This has mainly to do with differences in the scale of production and length of the storage period. The Manja, who produce in small quantities and who sell and/or consume their produce soon, do not give much attention to storage. In contrast, the Malla, who projiuce relatively large quantities and store their produce for relatively long period practicc more preservative methods of storage. i i For a long time the Malla were used to earning cash income from tejf sale and enjoying enjera from its flour, whereas the Manja do not rely on teff for cash since they earn most of their cash from non-agricultural activities. Hence, the Malla give more emphasis to teff than the Manja. In short, tha fanning goals of the two groups of farmers differ which explains their differential emphasi.i on various crops, j[ Finally, *vhile the Manja gather and consume the erpa wild ensete, the Malla do not consume erpa. This may be a carry over from the Manja food gathering history, the Malla had given up this and appear to be used to cultivating for much longer period than the Manja.

26 3.4 Some Processes in Generation and Transmission of Local Knowledge

The technical knowledge of farmers on crop varieties, seed selection, proper weeding, land preparation, storage, protection from pests, disease and rodents are complex. Each farmer has versatile technical knowledge of all of these processes for each crop.

This technical knowledge emanates from various sources including:-

1. Results of inherited knowledge and practices from previous generations whose original innovator could not be easily traced. j

2 . Diffusion from neighbouring people. For instance, coffee pruning from Jimma aiea. I 3. Results of farmer trial and error processes urged on by problems encountered. For example, it is said that farmers had fixed an additional part to the plough long af:er it has been in use. The plough was used with more difficulty until their trial and error attempts resulted in a way of making an additional hole to the plough and fixing a piece that helps to move the plough in a much easier way.

4. Encounter with national/international knowledge through the market system. A case in point is the Manja modification of the indigenous trap used for killing wild pig'. A group of Manja informants told me that the Manja had an indigenous trap to kill wild pig. Previously a rope for this trap was made up of a fibrous plant called pugaria wliich could be easily cut and results in escaping of the animal. Now they have substituted this part of the trap by a rope made up of fertiliser sack which they found much stronger. than the indigenous one. This is the one instance where local knowledge interacted^ with the international one and accommodated a part. ■

5. By incidental perception. For instance, one informant told me that the technique of protecting pests from cabbage by smoking was discovered as follows. House refuse of ash which contained embers (not intentional) was placed inside a plot of spices growing near the house in order to manure the plot. Soon the fire revived and started smoking. A farmer incidentally observed that pests were leaving the cabbage because of the smoke. Henceforth people started to use smoke to protect the crop from such pests. : » I Once new knowledge is generated in such ways or the existing knowledge is enriched through such subsequent innovations, then it enters the knowledge pool and is transmitted through traditional processes of knowledge transmission such as myths, rituals, practical involvement etc. These are just a few instances which indicate how indigenous knowledge is generated and enriched. But it has to be noted that such processes are not easy to study. Hence, what has been

27 mentioned is not in depth study of processes of knowledge creation in 'Dawro. Rather it is an instance showing that the issue could be studied with more time and effort.

Generally speaking, indigenous knowledge could be divided in to two broad categories, technical and social knowledge. The technical one includes knowledge of seasons, technique of ploughing, sowing, storing, crop protection, and so on. The 'social knowledge* includes the knowledge of social life and cultural practices such as, knowledge of clan mythology, social behaviour, ritual, conflict resolution, etc. Technical knowledge is gained from practical involvement and personal experimentation. An individual begins with conventional (inherited) technique and sharpens, enriches or changes this technique as he/she encounters the realities of life.

The "social knowledge1' is more complicated. It is related to ideology and mythology. Often it is transmitted through various traditional institutions and practices of knowledge transmission but also highly manipulated by individuals.

These components of indigenous knowledge are correlated. Technical knowledge provides access to information and gives social power, which is very important to gain access to social assets. Acccss to social assets has important implication for access to material assets. To give just one example, the amount and quality of labour one secures through collective labour depends significantly on a person’s social standing. For instance, more people join a work party of a respected person who has good social power and work more seriously for longer hours whereas the opposite is true for a dago of a socially less esteemed status.

In Dawro, one's ‘social identity’ {Malla, Manja or artisan) and clan identity influence what one learns and practices. These identities determine the non-working days, rituals one has to perform and attend, colours and types of animals one can own, with whom to enter kotha partnership and so on. To be respected as a knowledgeable person and considered as successful in life according to the Dawro ideology, one needs both kinds of knowledge, for a person has to be successful materially r,s well as socially. The Dawro technical knowledge of crop production is inextricably intertwined !with non-technical social attributes. !

• • .,11 ij - ,,, .1 , . t , 4. CONCLUSION

The comparative analysis of production practices demonstrated that the two groups of farmers display significant disparities in their farming strategies and production practices. Some of these differences include crop and variety preferences, cultivation technologies, soil ; fertilising methods, fanning goals associated with some crops, storage methods and so on. These differences are manifestations of differential asset ownership, farming history, food habits, and different livelihood strategies. Some of the differences are also manifestations of differences in micro-ecology. From this one may conclude that agricultural practices are determined not only by knowledge but also by the availability of assets and the ideological context of decision making. Thus, the Man]?i and Malla differences in farming practices reflect differences in resource base and ideology and not differences in technical knowledge of farming. Both groups of farmers demonstrate complex technical skills in farming. Technical operations are informed by knowledge of the characteristics of each crop, of climate, soils, seasons and so on. This knowledge varies significantly between the two groups which suggests that it may not be enough or even appropriate to talk in terms of Dawro local agricultural knowledge in a generalised sense because each group has specific skills, priorities, and faces particular opportunities and constraints. There are similarities in farming practices between the Manja and relatively poorer Malla, such as hand hoeing rather than ploughing, labour and oxen shortage. However, to view the practices of the Manja as responses to resource condition alone or to compare it to the practices of any poor Malla fanning household would miss a very significant social stratification for rural livelihoods in Dawro. The variations in fanning practices are not random variation by individual actors, but practices that vary systematically by fanner groups. However, this does not mean that everybody in one group does the same thing exactly in the same way; even the same person does not do similar activities exactly in the same way at different points in time. Farming practices of individual fanners are flexible within the general pattern of behavior pursued by the his/her group. The point is that to a reasonable degree of generalization, inter-group disparity and intra-group similarities are exhibited in farming practices in Koysha, due to the various reasons outlined above. Tn fact, some similarities in farming practices are observed across social boundaries due to sharing of macro-ecology and broader socio-political context. Another issue of paramount conceptual importance for this study is the distinction between fanning practices and local agricultural knowledge. In most literature on local (indigenous agricultural) knowledge, farming practices (behavior) are taken for knowledge (mental state of affairs). However, such congruence between knowledge and behavior is unwarranted mainly for two reasons. First, though people’s behavior is often based on their knowledge, most of what people know is not necessarily behaved. From this it follows that lack of certain behavior is not a good indicator of lack of particular knowledge. Secondly, sometimes people behave without knowing the consequence of their behavior. Though behavior and knowledge need to be seen as separate for analytical purposes, they also need to be seen as inter-related. In other words, people

29 behave ba£ed on their knowledge and conversely they gain knowledge from practice (behavior). In the case of our discussion of agricultural production, this means that local farming practices are based! on (or are expressions of) local agricultural knowledge, and practicing farming provides aj context for learning about it. This sounds contradictory to the argument of Richards (1989) who holds that cultivation should be considered more as improvised behavior than planned activity, and as performance than local knowledge - a position which overtly distinguishes between behavior and knowledge. For Richards crop mixes, for instance, are not a design but a result - a completed performance. Eacli mixture, he insists, is a historical record of what happened to a specific fanner on a specific piece of land in a specific year. It is not the outcome of a prior body of 'indigenous technical knowledge (Richards, 1993:67). For the farmers of Koysha, however, farming is as much planned as it is improvised. As any other social actors, fanners make plans based on their knowledge of crops, soils, season and analyzing j their economic, social and political opportunities and constraints. For instance, farmers inVest on land preparation for crops much earlier than the time of sowing. Fanners in Koysha pl’ant taro on a newly hand-hoed land thinking of using that plot for maize for the next season. When farmers cultivate crops in one season, as Fairehead (1990) observed among the farmers of eastern Zaire, they consider not only the yield of the present crop but also the fertility legacy foii the future. The very practices of crop rotation assume at least a flexible plan concerning the sequence of the crops. If things go as expected, farmers stick to their plans to grow a certain crop in a certain plot. However, farmers’ plans are highly flexible where there is a lot of room for maneuver though this should not suggest that farmers do noi make plans. No: does the existence of conditions which stifle farmers’ plans imply that farmers do not plan. This planr ing does not preclude experimentation, innovation and creativity. Nor does it imply that farming is mere rehearsal. Rather farmers have to behave dynamically even to achieve their plans. Though certain vagaries challenge farmers' plans, one cannot say that a farmer cannot be expected to make any plans, as did de Schlippe (1956 quoted in Scoones et.al, 1996). Not everything in life goes as expected. When unexpected circumstances occur, as the farming season unfolds, farmers have to make spontaneous decisions on the spot. This means fanners often have to improvise when plans fail. A fanner in Koysha has to improvise what to do with a maize plot if germination fails repeatedly and runs out of seed or if his ensete field is rendered bare due to ensete bacterial wilt. Such improvisations though do not take place in a knowledge vacuum; previous knowledge of soils, seasons, crops and sites influence the spontaneous decisions. For instance, no fanner in Koysha whose maize crop has failed in Shoika (out field) will decide to plant ensete pt coffee in that field, nor will any other farmer opt to sow any of the next seasons crops,soon after the failure. Rather, by quickly scanning his memory he will identify appropriate alternatives. This means that improvised performance is dictated by knowledge and experience. This is not to deny the fact that opportunistic farming responses, as noted by Scooncs et.al (1996), are essential to get the best outcome out of a fundamentally uncontrolled peasant environment; and that the 'live performance on the fanners* field' is much more dynamic than the

30 'rehearsals' of conventional agricultural research. The argument in short is that as the'practices in Koysha indicate, in actual practice of fanning, systematization exists along with flexibility and planning works alongside improvisation. That is why there are changes as well as continuities, norms as well as idiosyncrasies and creativity as well as traditions in farming practices and local knowledge in general. j I I t I

REFERENCES

Action Aid-Ethiopia* Koysha RDA 1993a. Report of Diagnostic Survey of Agriculture in Shaba Yoyo PA. AAE, FARM Africa, MOA (Soddo), and Awassa College of Agriculture.

Action Aid-Ethiopia, Koysha RDA 1993b. A Project Proposal to RRC for the Period Between January 1994 and December 1996.

Action Aid-Ethiopia, Koysha RDA 1994. Census Report of Ten PAS and Waka Town of Mareka Wrireda. I- ' Bender, ML. 1974. Omotic: A New Afroasiatic Language family. University Museum Studies No.3.

Bender, M.L et.al. 1976. Language in Ethiopia. London: Oxford University Press.

Brusius, J.P. et.al, 1986. "pthnoecologv: An Approach to Understand Traditional Knowledge11. In: G.G. M irten (ed). Traditional Agriculture in Southeast Asia. London: West View Press

Cerulli, E .: 1956. Peoples of SouthWest and Its Borderland. London, International African Institute, j

Central Statistical Office 1991. The 1984 population and housing census of Ethiopia: Analytical report at national level. Addis Ababa.

CSO.The T994 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia; Results for Southern Nations'. Nationalities* and Peoples' Region. Vol. 1. ParTlV. Addis Ababa.

Desalegn, R. 1988. Peasant Knowledge and famine Prevention. Paper Presented at the National Conference on Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Strategy. ONCCP, Addis Ababa.

Fairhead, J. 1992. Indigenous Technical Knowledge and Natural Resource Management i:i suh- Saharan Africa A Critical Review. Paper Presented at the Social "Science Research Council Project on African Agricultural Conference, Dakar, Senegal.

Fleming, H.C. 1973. 'T^cenLRe,search in Qmotic-Speakipg Areas.*; In: Proceedings of the First Upited States Conference on Ethiopian Stuqies. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Gizachew Abegaz. 1992. A Survey of Agriculture in Kovsna Rural Development Area. Action Aid-Ethiopia. (Mimeographed).

Hailu Mekbib. 1995. The Importance of Ethnobotanv in Genetic Resources Conservation and Development. Paper Presented at the Workshop on Ecogeoeraphic Survey and Ethnobotanv Research on Plant Genetic Resources in Ethiopian, Addis Ababa. Hallpike, C.R. 1986. The Principles of Social Evolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

* u'..' , V.1 ■(

32 kassave Hadgu 1993. Report of Livestock Production and Health Situation Survey of Koysha Rural 1 )e\ ?lopment Area. kefale Alemu and Steven Sandford 1991. Enset in North Omo. FARM Africa. FRP Pamphlet No. 1.

Reijntjes, C. et.al. 1992. Farming for the Future: An Introduction to Low-External Input and Sustainable Agriculture. Amsterdam: The Macmillan press.

Richards, i\ 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. London: Hutchinson...... 1993. "Cultivation: Knowledge or Performance?" In M.Hobart ed., An Anthroplogical ( 'ritique ol development: The Growth of Ignorance. London: Routledge. Scoones, 1. et.al 1996. Hazards and Opportunities. Fanning Livelihoods in Dryland Africa: Lessons from Zimbabwe. London: Zed Rooks Ltd.

Scoones, I.& Thompson, J. (eds). 1994. Beyond Farmers First: Rural Peoples' Knowledge. \ l;ricn 1 uiral Research and Extension Practices. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

1 erele Gebre et.al. 1995. Ye Dawro Biheresseb YeTcivik. Yebahil. Yequanquanu Yelimat Symposium. Dawro: Waka.

Yohannes Shiferaw.^ 1993. Access Roads Condition Survey and Maintenance Proposal. Vciionaid-Ethiopia, Koysha Development Area. (Mimeographed).

/ekari,;;sj\ leuiso 1989. Dawro: A Short Surv;ev of Society and Economy in the Seco id half of ihe 19 Century. B.A. Thesis in History, Addis Ababa University.

33 Appendix A : Maps / W ■y ' SOUTHERN TIP A POLS REGIOHETHIOPIA' PEOPLES'

geographyical OCATtON Sketch Map of Koysha PA with Settlement Patterns of Wollili Village

-=\. AB.K/} 2>Ha ( a u/ l u 9 g < s /jo * * ? ?

& & i &

S tfA C L O e A ^ V iL L sb & c s tr> | i V^-> i E

t f < L *

i n 4 ?: n % 2 ^ ^ i , $ j< ? 4% * v % 4 4 W $ 9 —**• i I ,«.// * « . /..<&, -r W/i' L s ^ a - ^ s L ^

jQ z (cfiJCdoACA )\0^<. V _ © r Afi&'tfM tt foUr * % £ , MFu SciuW

35 U^1

Appendix B : Drawing of Dawro Farm Implements

36 Appendix C :PIates

Plate 1: Manja Settlement and Hats 9 ? ■ * -

37

T : '■•r'VY. I 1 V. .•!<• ...

Plate 3: Ulia - Grass Store Plate 4: Doria - Storage Plate 5: ‘Improved Crib’